9 ms·
The law isn't there yet if you want crypto to work. But Gensler wants to kill crypto, and for that simply applying the existing rules fairly will do. Crypto do
by iudqnolq 4y ago
The law isn't there yet if you want crypto to work. But Gensler wants to kill crypto, and for that simply applying the existing rules fairly will do.
Crypto doesn't have an inherent right to have the laws rewritten to enable it, it needs to make the case for why that would be good for the public. So far it hasn't.
- csomar 4y agoCrypto as in crypto-currencies is simply two (or multiple) peers exchanging information between them. They do not need a law to permit that, a case for the "good for the public", or anyone authorization for that matter.
- ufo 4y agoBy that logic, most financial crimes are just people signing and exchanging pieces of paper.
- iudqnolq 4y agoThe way the law works is often by banning based on intent and meaning and content. Exchanging information is too general: the law looks at what information, by whom, for what purpose. Nearly every white collar crime fundamentally involves some sort of unauthorized communication. (Insider trading, for example, involves receiving information by virtue of a trusted position and then communication information to a broker which causes them to execute trades on your behalf). We can even get beyond white collar: hiring a hitman is obviously illegal even if it involves. communication. I'm not saying (in this comment) crypto is necessarily bad. I am saying you need to defend it on the merits; it's just info so it's ok isn't how anything in society works.
- jrm4 4y agoBut no; we're a default "freedom" kind of place. You don't get to summarily declare crypto verboten and make crypto prove it's okay -- the burden is on crypto's detractors to show specifically why it's bad.
- polygamous_bat 4y agoOne word: FTX.
- jrm4 4y agoNo, like a lawyer or policy maker would.
- yellowapple 4y agoOne word: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/failed-bank-list/ https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/fai... (You can pick which word)
- polygamous_bat 4y agoLooks like a lot more than a word to me. Also, do you respond to car crashes by saying we should get rid of speed limits and drunk driving laws?
- yellowapple 4y agoI respond to car crashes by saying that regulating cars out of existence in response is overkill.
- polygamous_bat 4y agoThe difference between regulating cars and regulating crack cocaine is that cars have actual, provable use cases. Even fentanyl has legitimate, real world use cases in anesthesia. And no, money laundering isn't a valid use case.
- flangola7 4y agoThey're not just exchanging information they're exchanging something that, by their very own account, has financial value. We as society figured out long ago through hard real life lessons that there must be sophisticated rules and regulations around financial transactions or else enormous negative consequences and human suffering follow.
- jrm4 4y ago100% agree. And the "sophisticated" part is important. This is where Gensler failed hard. You have to make the case.
- bluecalm 4y agoCrypto is the same as introducing your own currency and printing your own notes. "But it's on the computer" doesn't change the nature of it.
- ChainOfFools 4y agoexcept with cryptocurrency the added exploitation of a broader social custom (privacy) shrouds "you" in a thin veil of decentralized deniability, removing all sense of accountability.
- DennisP 4y agoIntroducing your own currency and printing your own notes is legal and has a long history in the US and elsewhere. One famous example is the Ithica Hours. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/Bitcoins/ithaca-hour.html https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-...
- jrm4 4y agoNot necessarily; a reasonable argument is "it's just another commodity that can change in value." Someone can introduce Pokemon cards and they can change value just fine.
- fallingknife 4y agoCrypto, like anything else, is legal unless it it outlawed. And it hasn't been. Only congress has the power to pass such a law.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- WalterSear 4y agoUnregistered securities are illegal.
- lacker 4y agoUnregistered securities are legal, you just can't sell them to the public. That is one possible outcome for crypto tokens - you could still own Ethereum, and one individual privately selling some to another individual would be legal, but companies like Coinbase wouldn't be allowed to sell it to the public.
- pcthrowaway 4y agoIsn't p2p selling of crypto illegal now though? I thought that's why localbitcoins got shut down.
- lacker 4y agoNo, if you want to sell some crypto to a friend of your, that's fine. I don't know why localbitcoins shut down, but it's perfectly consistent for "facilitating transactions at scale" to be illegal while "doing a single peer to peer transaction" is legal. That's how unregistered securities work, right? I am allowed to buy half of your small business, even though it isn't registered with the SEC. That doesn't mean you're allowed to sell stock in your small business and advertise that on the internet.
- jrm4 4y agoGreat, now prove crypto is a security. They haven't done this yet. I'm sure some fall under that definition, but some of the big boys, especially ETH, are at least ARGUABLY not, and the SEC simply hasn't done enough homework yet.
- jrm4 4y agoI get what you want but that's NOT HOW LAW WORKS or should work. You don't get to declare something is bad first without reasoning your way through it through a tested system like law. That's more or less anti Constitutional / American etc.
- iudqnolq 4y agoIt depends on the specifics. For example, suppose a drug cartel invents a new formula. The DEA gets to ban it under existing law. I'm not saying that's analogous. I'm merely providing a counterexample for your idea that the government always has to create custom laws whenever something new happens.
- yellowapple 4y ago> For example, suppose a drug cartel invents a new formula. The DEA gets to ban it under existing law. The cartels exist in the first place specifically because the DEA exists and keeps knee-jerk banning things without bothering to demonstrate actual harm.
- iudqnolq 4y agoI agree. But it's pretty obvious they're legally allowed to do it.